Partly allowed

Gujji Naidu Reddy, v. Bora Vijayalaxmi

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Dec 2024AS/2143/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal arising from a decree of ₹22.52 lakhs. An interim stay was previously vacated due to the appellants' failure to deposit half the amount. The court granted four months to deposit the balance decree amount and the respondent was permitted to withdraw the already deposited sum.

What did the court decide?

Four months time granted for depositing balance decretal amount; respondent permitted to withdraw deposited sum.

Gujji Naidu Reddy, Vs Bora Vijayalaxmi — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY JHE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
T
TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FOUR Or
3: k
o

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA H

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶7

APPEAL SUIT NO: 2143 OF 2018

¶8

Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C, against the Judgment^{anddecreedt.21-08-} 2018 made in O.S.No.164 of 2013, on the file of the XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gujji Naidu Reddy, S/o. Late Satyam Reddy, Hindu, Aged 54 yrs, R/at D.No. 49-53-20/1, Balayya SaStry Layout, Visakhapatnam

¶11

Gujji Laxminarayanamma, W/o. Gujji Naidu Reddy, Hindu, Aged 50 yrs, R/at D.No.49-53-20/ 1, Balayya Sastry Layout, Visakhapatnam

¶12

...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT

¶13

AND

¶14

Bora Vijayalaxmi, W/o.Nooka Reddy, Hindu, Aged 52 years.^Housewife R/o D.N0.1-5-8/A, New venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam

¶15

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶17

Petition under Section 15T CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 21.08.2018 passed in OS.No. 164/2013 on the file of the XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam including^{executionofthedecree} pending disposal of the above appeal.

¶18

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI A S C BOSE

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K JYOTHI PRASAD

¶20

The Court made the following JUDGMENT :

¶21

APHC010972932018

¶22

BBS B

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

[3494]

¶25

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶29

APPEAL SUIT NO: 2143/2018

¶30

Between:

¶31

Gujji Naidu Reddy, S/o. Late Satyam Reddy, Hindu, Aged 54 years R/ at D.No.49-53-20/1,Balayya Sastry Layout, Visakhapatnam and another

¶32

...APPELLANT{S)

¶33

AND

¶34

Bora Vijayalaxmi, W/o. Nooka Reddy, Hindu, Aged 52 years. House wife, R/o. D.No.1-5-8/A, New venkojipalem Visakhapatnam.

¶35

...RESPONDENT

¶36

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶37

AS C BOSE

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶39

K JYOTHI PRASAD

¶40

The Court made the following Judgment: (per NJS,J)

¶41

The present appeal is preferred against the Judgment^and Decree dated 21.08.2018 in O.S No.164 of 2013, on the file^{oftheCourtoftheXII} Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

¶42

The appellants herein are the defendants. The respondent/plainti^fffiled the said suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.22,52,500/-,^onthefootofa

¶43

Contd...

¶44

NJS,J & JS,J A.SNo.2143 of 2018

¶45

¶46

promissory note stated to have been executed by the appellants. The appellants/defendants contested the suit by filing^{awrittenstatement,denying} the suit claim. 3. After framing the issue as to “Whether the plaintiff^{isentitledforthesuit} claim?” and considering the oral and documentary evidence^adduced on behalf of the respective parties, the learned Trial^{Courtdecreedthesuitwith} costs for a sum of Rs.22,52,500/- with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the suit, till its realization.^{Aggrievedbythesaid} Judgment and Decree, the appellants preferred the instant^appeal. 4. At the time of considering the application I.A No.1^{of2019,seekingstay} of execution of Judgment and Decree, the following interim order dated 05.02.2020 was passed.

¶47

“...There shall be Interim stay, as prayed for a period^ofSix[06] weeks, subject to the condition that the Petitioners^{deposithalfof} the decretal amount with interest and proportionate^costs, within a period of 04 weeks from today, in default, the stay^grantedshall stand vacated. ”

¶48

Admittedly, the appellants failed to deposit the half^{ofthedecreetal} amount, as per the interim direction dated 05.02.2020,^{asaresultofwhich,} the default order had automatically came into operation.

¶49

Be that as it may. In view of the non-compliance of^{theinterimorder,the} respondent/plaintiff filed an application I.A No.1^{of2024seekingtovacatethe} interim order dated 05.02.2020 and dismiss the appeal.^{Thereafter,settingout} the circumstances, under which the interim order dated^{05.02.2020couldnot} be complied with, the petitioners/appellants moved^{I.ANo.2of2024.}

¶50

While considering I.A No.2 of 2024, more particularly, taking into account the submission that the appellants are intending^{topaytheentire} decreetal amount, if six (06) months time is granted,^{thisCourtwasinclinedto} pass order dated 09.12.2024, granting time for depositing^{Rs.4,00,000/-onor}

¶51

Contd...

¶52

NJS,J & JS,J A.SNo.2143 of 2018-

¶53

¶54

¶55

before 11.12.2024. The respondent/plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the said amount along with Rs. 16,00,000/- which is already^{creditedtothesuit} account, though not within the time stipulated vide^{conditionalorderdated} 05.02.2020.

¶56

The learned counsel for the appellants, referring to^thememodated 10.12.2024, states that in compliance of the order dated 09.12.2024 an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was deposited on 10.12.2024^{tothecreditofthesuit} and in view of the same, the appellants may be granted six (06) months time for depositing the balance decreetal amount, after giving credit to the said amount of Rs.20,00,000/-.

¶57

The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners/appellants came forward to deposit the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as their property is brought to auction and in fact, they are capable of depositing the entire balance amount, immediately. In view of the same, he submits that the request for granting six (06) months time is not just or tenable.

¶58

This Court has considered the submissions made on both sides. A perusal of the interim order dated 05.02.2020 extracted above, would clearly go to show that in the event of default in complying the order of deposit of half of the decreetal amount including costs and interest, stay granted shall stand vacated. The time granted expired on 04.03.2020 and more than four years after the default order came into force, the appellants/defendants came up with I.A No.2 of 2024, seeking extension of time to comply with the interim order that too after filing of I.A, No.1 of 2024 i.e., vacate stay petition. However, as noted in detail in the order dated 09.12.2024, this Court was inclined to grant time for the appellants, more particularly, in view of their inclination to deposit the entire decreetal amount including costs and thereby satisfy the Judgment and decree.

¶59

Contd...

¶60

NJS, J &JS,J A.SNo.2143 of 2018

¶61

¶62

granting four (04) months time to 11. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of, decreetal amount including costs the appeiiants, for depositing the balance L InLst, to the credit Of O.SN0.164 Of 2013, from the date of receipt of such deposit, the to observe that, on of this order. Needless copy respondent/plaintiff^{isentitledtowithdrawthesame.}

¶63

decreetal amount, 12. In the event the appellants fail to deposit the balance the execution proceedings, in accordance w,th law.

¶64

shall stand closed. As a sequel, all pending applications

¶65

SD/E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SE' N OFFICER

¶66

//TRUE COPY//

¶67

To,

¶68

, Visakhapatnam Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam 1. TheXll district (with records if any) A S C Bose Advocate [OPUC] 2. OneCCto Sri. 3. One CC to Sri. K Jyothi Prasad Advocate [OPUC]

¶69

Court of Andhra Pradesh at Officer, VR Section, High 4. The Section Amaravathi

¶70

three CD COPIES

stu

TAC

HIGH COURT

DATED: 16/12/2024

JUDGMENT + DECREE AS.No.2143 of 2018

¶76

02 APR 2025 Current Section ^

¶77

DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT

¶78

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶79

MONDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶80

PRESENT

¶81

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶82

AND

¶83

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶84

APPEAL SUIT NO: 2143 OF 2018

¶85

Between:

¶86

Gujji Naidu Reddy, S/o. Late Satyam Reddy, Hindu, Aged 54 yrs, R/at D.No. 49-53-20/1, Balayya Sastry Layout, Visakhapatnam

¶87

Gujji Laxminarayanamma, W/o. Gujji Naidu Reddy, Hindu, Aged 50 yrs, R/at D.No.49-53-20/ 1, Balayya Sastry Layout, Visakhapatnam

¶88

...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT

¶89

AND

¶90

Bora Vijayalaxmi, W/o.Nooka Reddy, Hindu, Aged 52 years.^Housewife R/o D.No. 1-5-8/A, New venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam

¶91

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶92

Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C, against the Judgment^{anddecreedt.21-08-} 2018 made in O.S.No.164 of 2013, on the file of the XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

¶93

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri A S C Bose, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri K Jyothi Prasad, Advocate for Respondent.

¶94

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶95

That the appeal be and is hereby disposed of;

¶96

That four(04) months time be and is hereby granted to appellants for depositing the balance decreetal amount including costs and interest, to the credit of O.S No.164 of 2013, from the date of receipt of this order;

¶97

That the respondent/plaintiff be and is hereby entitled to withdraw the same;

¶98

That in the event, the appellants failed to deposit^thebalance decreetal amount within the stipulated time, the respondent/plaintiff would be entitled to pursue the^execution proceeding, in accordance with law and

¶99

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶100

SDI- E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam district

2. THREE CD COPIES

TAC

HIGH COURT

DATED:16/12/2024

DECREE

AS.No.2143 of 2018

o ^
//o
ja: 0 2 APR 2025
Current Seetion
2'PSPATCV^^!'^^

¶112

DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT

Gujji Naidu Reddy, v. Bora Vijayalaxmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gujji Naidu Reddy, v. Bora Vijayalaxmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Smt. D. Jayasree, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M R Granites Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gajula Vivekananda, Vs The District Collector

M Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

S L v Global Projects Vs the State of Ap

M/s Sri Krishna Minerals, Vs the State of Ap